What would the Catholic Church’s judgement be on an agency or government that exercised political control of opinion and repressed things they considered thought crimes? Based on a reading of CCC 2499 the Church would consider such an agency or government part of, or a totalitarian state. See Catechism of the Catholic Church in section 2499 below:
CCC 2499 “Moral judgment must condemn the plague of totalitarian states which systematically falsify the truth, exercise political control of opinion through the media, manipulate defendants and witnesses at public trials, and imagine that they secure their tyranny by strangling and repressing everything they consider “thought crimes.”“
It has been reported that employees inside the IRS have allegedly intimidated individuals like Catholic professor, Dr. Anne Hendershott (read here) because of what she thinks and repressed the applications of several groups that are considered to be conservative who applied for 501c status with the IRS.
See the video below for the example of a conservative group facing such repression through an IRS official’s letter at minute 3:40 read by Congressman James Lankford of Oklahoma district 5. Lankford also demonstrates that many officials at the IRS would have been involved in the creation of the letter:
†
Additionally, CCC section 2499 does go deeper into how totalitarian states use the media and manipulate persons. Unfortunately, these other warnings alsoappear to have potential today in the U.S.
“[2]And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: the spirit of wisdom, and of understanding, the spirit of counsel, and of fortitude, the spirit of knowledge, and of godliness.[3] And he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. He shall not judge according to the sight of the eyes, nor reprove according to the hearing of the ears.”
Masha Gessen, a homosexual activist says, “We lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change.” Listen to the audio below for this admission and where she thinks it will lead.
†
Please send this post to your friends and family that want a redefinition of the sacrament of marriage or who think such a redefinition is not harmful.
Additionally, if you or a family member has same-sex attractions, visit www.CourageRC.net.Courage is a Catholic Apostolate for spiritual support for Catholic men and women with same-sex attractions who desire to live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church.
O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.
One of the most frustrating experiences a congregant can face is watching his faith community join an Alinskyian community organization (also referred to as a socialist community organization by “Lay Catholics”.) Sooner or later, he will approach the pastor, complaining that the organization is “just another political” group. The pastor patronizingly retorts that it isn’t.
President Barack Obama, however, is providing the chastened congregant with new ammunition. The Obama campaign for reelection has morphed into a non-profit entity called Organizing for Action.[i] Jon Carson, who directed Obama’s Office of Public Engagement during the president’s first term and is now executive director of Organizing for Action, has made a YouTube presentation[ii]… See below:
…(as has the president’s wife, Michelle[iii]) for the initiative. Carson invites folks – yes, it’s very folksy – to join the group and form a lobbying machine for Obama’s agenda, which is currently working on passage of comprehensive immigration reform legislation, gun control legislation, and a progressive budget. It links to BarackObama.com, so there’s no question who’s the lead organizer.
Are the Alinskyian community organizing networks involved in Organizing for Action? As it would have been awkward for non-profits to have been directly involved with the Obama reelection campaign, it is not surprising that Organizing for Action, rising from that campaign, is not immediately associated with them. However, there are hints that a marriage has been proposed and is forthcoming.
For instance, Ana Garcia-Ashley, Gamaliel’s executive director, writes:
“As we came upon Election Day, these relationships [that Gamaliel has forged with ‘electoral organizing allies’] may have saved our democracy. … We now have in place a powerful alliance of relationships that allowed us to navigate undeterred through these threats to our democracy. Now we can take next steps together. We seek to create a just world, built around our faith values. We will work together to repeal the laws that limit our democratic rights, and go even further, working to change the system that created the Great Recession and several concurrent wars. As leaders of the new progressive movement in America, we envision an economy that works for all, and with the fire of our faith we will work together to make that dream a reality.”[iv]
There has also been reportage about the convening of various religious left coalitions recently, specifically around the three issues that Organizing for Action has chosen for its opening salvos.
Gun Control:
Sojourners chief Jim Wallis blamed the National Rifle Association as a primary reason for violence in America, citing phenomenally high gun-murder rates in Chicago (but never mentioning Chicago’s strict gun control).[v] Along with the PICO National Network, it used the occasion of the Newtown shootings to lobby 100 senators with a letter, primarily signed by clergy, urging support for gun-control legislation.[vi]
Metro Industrial Areas Foundation, a New York City affiliate of (the Industrial Areas Foundation, founded by Saul Alinsky) the premier Alinskyian organizing network, joined with their Chicago affiliate, United Power for Action and Justice, in a campaign “to shut down the most irresponsible gun dealers in its metropolitan area.”[vii]
Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
The Interfaith Immigration Coalition, which is promoted by Faith in Public Life, includes Sojourners, many of the prominent, dissident Catholic groups (NETWORK, Pax Christi, Leadership Conference of Women Religious, etc.), national denominational entities with strong Alinskyian organizing ties, the PICO National Network and Interfaith Worker Justice.
Of course, this is nothing new.
Throughout the years, Interfaith Worker Justice has coordinated vigils, rallies, and “pulpit swaps” for comprehensive immigration reform. The Southwest Industrial Areas Foundation has coordinated “clergy preaching for the pulpit” on the topic. Gamaliel has run National Prayer Vigil Campaigns and a Civil Rights of Immigrants Campaign. The White House has held gatherings of “faith leaders,” hoping to craft coordinated messages of “religious” support for its efforts. These groups have been working together for a long time.
Obama’s Budget (not Paul Ryan’s):
Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wisc.) proposal for a federal budget based on his understanding of Catholic social principles such as “subsidiarity” and fiscal discipline became a focal point against which the Alinskyian organizing networks and their allies enthusiastically rallied.
The PICO National Network, Interfaith Worker Justice, and others (including NETWORK, Catholics United, Sojourners, and Faith in Public Life) staged “Loaves and Fishes” actions “to highlight the need for moral and political courage in federal budget negotiations.”[viii]NETWORKspecifically attacked Ryan’s proposed budget cuts, orchestrating a well-publicized “Nuns on the Bus” tour through nine states.[ix]
In Summary
Clearly, there isn’t a one-to-one correlation here but an observation that fellow travelers, well, travel together. They share the road and the destination, which is important to understand when the Alinskyian organizations protest that they’re “not political.” No, they’re “not political…” just like Obama’s Organizing for Action is “not political.”
[i] Ken Thomas, “New nonprofit to promote Obama agenda,” The Guardian, 1-18-13. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10618562 : “In an unprecedented move, President Barack Obama’s vaunted political organization is being turned into a nonprofit group — funded in part by corporate money — to mobilize support behind the president’s second-term agenda.” [ii] Jon Carson, “Executive Director of Organizing for Action, Outlines Next Steps:” [iii] “The First Lady on the Launch of Organizing for Action:” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYT68Uii1dk [iv] Ana Garcia-Ashley, “Show Me What Democracy Looks Like,: Huffington Post, 11-7-12. [v] Mark Tooley, “Religious Left Wants Control of More than Guns,” Front Page Magazine, 1-18-13. [vi] Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), “Newtown rabbi joins Muslim, Christian clergy in urging gun controls,” 3-12-13. Letter and signatories: http://www.piconetwork.org/tools-resources/document/letter-from-Newtown-with-signers-2013-03-10.pdf [vii] Alec Harris and The Rev. David Brawley, “Gun control without waiting for Congress Wield the buying power of police departments and the military,” New York Daily News, 2-7-13. [viii] Faith in Public Life Press Release, “Faith Community to Congress: ‘It Doesn’t Take a Miracle to Make a Moral Budget’,” 3-18-13. [ix] Allison Kilkenny, “The Resistance Continues as Citizens Fight Budget Cuts,” The Nation, 6-26-12.
Do you believe that marriage is, and only can be, between a man and a woman? Do you believe it is the bedrock of society? Finally, do you believe that Nature’s God instituted marriage in the beginning? If you said yes to all of these questions, this article is being written for you. Let me explain. Words matter and how you frame a message matters. In fact, whoever defines the language controls the message and frames it in their favor. This is why I am making the case that if you believe the above statement, then you can never use the word “gay” before the word “marriage.” If you do not believe me, then you should study the word battles in the abortion issue. It was through my work with the Right to Life in Iowa that I learned these important lessons of language—first being that you never repeat your opposition’s message or use “their” language. Please read on before you write again to defend marriage.
Again, you never repeat your opposition’s message in order to give your rebuttal. Don’t give them free space on your page. This is by far the biggest error of the right. The opposition said what they said to persuade, and they carefully crafted their words. They have the disadvantage since they must “change” culture, so they are not going to use your words. Christians and pro-life people react with very little strategy when they publish an article. To their credit they want to defend truth and are willing to step out of their comfort zone to speak up—great, and thank you. With that said, to their fault, they are not paying attention to how to fight the battle with words. Consider why the liberal papers flip pro-lifers’ words from “pro-life” to “anti-choice”. This is not an accident and has a definite motive behind it. They want their readers to view pro-life people as an “anti” kind of people, which has the subliminal effect of making the reader want to disassociate with an “anti” group, as opposed to reporting us as “pro” life, which would have a drawing effect. Take also into consideration the abortion industry’s use of “pro-choice” instead of “anti-life”. Why do you think the largest abortion group in the United States call themselves Planned Parenthood instead of Abortions Aplenty? The answer is obvious; they do not want people to view them as advancing more abortion. Words really, really, really matter when engaging in social issues.
Let this be the rule of thumb when you want to engage in the battle of words:
Whoever defines the word, frames the issue in their favor. So long as you use their language, you have yielded and helped them without even knowing it.
My hope is that my friends in this battle for marriage will be persuaded to stop using the opposition’s language. Make no mistake; marriage has been under attack for a long time. You do not have to look far to realize that the younger generation places very little value in the institution. Why is it under attack? I am convinced that marriage is a reflection of the triune God, and a picture of Christ’s relationship with the church, with Him as the bridegroom and us as His bride. So in fact, this is far more than what it appears. Let’s face it; God instituted marriage as his plan to populate the earth by creating each new generation and as a reflection of his love. Marriage is about a life-long commitment that includes bringing children into the world. If a couple is unable to have children, they can either adopt or serve mankind in another way. The order of society should still maintain a mother and a father uniting to pro-create and raise children. This is so obvious that it is a wonderment that so many people are confused today. However, it’s not the first time in history that people have lost their way on this issue. The question is: how did we get here? I believe a good place to start in understanding how America fell so fast as to devalue marriage can be found in Humanae Vitae, written by Pope Paul VI.
I contend that the other side has done a good job dismantling marriage by using propaganda. They took advantage of the fact that most people are lazy thinkers and do not like to be controversial. Reframing the language began with a simple word–“gay”, which at one time meant “happy” or “joyful”, yet now it means someone who has sex with the same gender. Not too long ago this sexual act was called perversion. In fact, because of this perversion God’s judgment fell on Sodom and Gomorrah, and men who engaged in this sexual act were thereafter referred to as Sodomites. Like all sins that lead to eternal death, it should be treated for what it is–sin that can be forgiven. Let’s face it, all of us are sinners and need to repent to be restored to God. However, it is evil to say that a sin is no longer a sin. In the case of sexual perversion, many now say that people are born this way. We are all born with a sinful nature—that is, a desire to sin. Not only is everyone born bent to sin, but we are all born with a sexual drive. The reality is, as sinners, we are all given the choice to act upon all types of sinful inclinations or to reject them to do what is right. No one is without sin. Make no mistake—there is no one without excuse. Nature bears witness to the truth. It is black and white. The problem today is that people are buying into the lie that we can’t help ourselves and therefore it must be okay. It is not okay and we must speak the truth, with love and with the correct words.
So let’s get back to what language to use or not to use in defending marriage. You must ask yourself again whether or not you truly believe that marriage is, and can only be, between a man and a woman. If so, then we can say with confidence there is only one kind of marriage. Right? Try not to contradict yourself by putting the word “gay or homosexual” with the word marriage. If it can’t be and doesn’t exist then do not speak it into existence. If you choose to use their language, they will use it against you. How? Once you allow them to create a new kind of marriage by using their language, all they have to do is say you are discriminating against “blank-marriage.” See how subtle, and yet so simple. You become your own worst enemy. This information is probably a decade late, but I’m hopeful that at least some will catch on.
For those of you who have the habit of using their language instead of saying “marriage”, don’t be undisciplined or lazy and think that what I just said doesn’t matter, for not only does it matter, it matters a lot. You must decide what you believe and then speak the words. Marriage stands alone for it is what it is. Do not help your opposition any longer by repeating “their message.” Please! Discipline yourself and stay on message.
If you were to ask me how I say it, I use these words:
Defend marriage (number one choice to say over and over again)
I encourage you to stop the destruction of marriage
I support marriage
Please support marriage with me
Marriage is a blessing
Marriage is under attack
Rebuild marriage for the sake of our children
Marriage has always been male and female, and I might add, will always be and cannot be anything but one man and one woman
We must not let marriage be dismantled
Encourage our children to marry
Society didn’t create marriage and therefore has no power toredefine it
Never call it “traditional Marriage” for that implies there is more then one kind of marriage (very subtle.) You will notice that your opposition will never say they are destroying marriage or dismantling it. They are very disciplined to use their own language and compel you to use it in rebuttal.
The objective for both sides is to frame the message to get agreement:
If you ask people if they support marriage, they will say yes
If you ask them if they want to destroy marriage, they will say no
If you ask them if society should help rebuild marriages in the US for the sake of our children, they will say yes
If you ask people if they want to protect marriage, they will say yes
Remember to frame the issue or your message in a way that the public will support. So stay on message and love all people, and for the sake of our loving God, never agree with a lie by repeating the lie in order to rebut it. Simply state your message. Why give them free advertising? Frame the truth and stay on message.
Best wishes,
Your friend in truth with love,
Kim Lehman, IA
Turns out that one of the aggressor students (Damian Legacy) toward Father Greg Shaffer (the Catholic priest at the Newman Center) was ordained as a priest in the heretical “North American Old catholic church.”
Here is an excerpt from The GW Hatchet story about Damian Legacy’s ordination:
“Now on the precipice of graduation, the openly gay student is an ordained priest within the North American Old Catholic Church, which encourages LGBT members to join its clergy. Legacy was ordained in October, and since then, has held personal morning masses and structured prayer sessions six times a day. He also hosts masses for other students in his City Hall room.”
Go to minute 5:17 to see the exchange between a legislator and the PP official on transporting a child born alive after a failed abortion to a hospital:
During the Papal conclave, EWTN had the best backdrop, the best commentary, the best guests and the best coverage. All of it free of odd secular political context.
Their live coverage on March 13, 2013 when the white smoke billowed from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel was not just better than the national U.S. television media. It was superior.
Colleen Carroll Campbell who was EWTN’s anchor for the live event, gracefully moderated her guests when they didn’t know when the smoke would come or what color it would be. The guests were knowledgable and interesting. The guests educated the viewers on the history of the papacy, the conclave and many other things of Catholic significance. The other national U.S. television media just couldn’t do it. That’s why many, including myself, tuned to EWTN and received superior coverage.
I don’t mean to throw EWTN into a competition with our secular national media but, EWTN smoked them. “White” smoked them!
I hope and pray EWTN can continue to do more. They proved their superiority in this coverage of the conclave that elected Pope Francis. God bless their good work.
O Holy Spirit, strengthen us to defend all that is holy.
What would the Catholic Church’s judgement be on an agency or government that exercised political control of opinion and repressed things they considered thought crimes? Based on a reading of CCC 2499 the Church would consider such an agency or government part of, or a totalitarian state. See Catechism of the Catholic Church in section 2499 below:
